LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 170

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

170 THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

Resolved, That Synod in convention request the President of
Synod to rescind his instructions to District Presidents to discipline
pastors who have signed the document “That They May Be One.”

Zion
Anderson, TX

3-40
To Adopt “That They May Be One”

Preamble

It is incumbent upon the church to clearly confess the one true
faith. This involves both stating the true doctrine, as it is drawn
from the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, and re-
sponding to false doctrine when it arises, as is done in the Book of
Concord. Thus we are admonished by our Lord to “[teach] them to
observe everything I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20), “mark
those who cause divisions among you contrary to the doctrine with
which you have been catechized” (Rom. 16:17—18), and “earnestly
contend for the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

It is necessary for the church to speak clearly so that the true
confession can be distinguished from false doctrine. Thus our Lord
declares that divisions in the church serve a beneficial purpose “so
that those who are approved may be recognized” (1 Cor.
11:18-19). By such a clear confession true believers may be drawn
to it and protected from false doctrine.

The LCMS, in convention, has from time to time for various
reasons adopted doctrinal statements. In 1851, “to repel the attacks
of Pastor Grabau of Buffalo, New York,” the church adopted
Church and Ministry. In 1881, when a controversy arose concern-
ing the doctrine of election (predestination), the Thirteen Theses on
Election and Conversion was adopted. In response to the ecumeni-
cal movements and documents of the early decades of the twentieth
century, the church adopted A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Po-
sition of the Missouri Synod in 1932. In 1950-56 the Synod
adopted the Common Confession, Parts I & II, which grew out of
fellowship discussions with the American Lutheran Church. How-
ever, it must be noted that when this document was finally adopted
in 1956, it was resolved that it could not serve as a basis of fellow-
ship because it was not being upheld by the ALC. Because of con-
cer among the members of the Synodical Conference over the
LCMS position on the Scripture, the Synod adopted Statement on
the Scriptures in 1959. The only CTCR document to be adopted by
the Synod in convention (the rest are simply commended for study
and guidance) was Theology of Fellowship in 1967. In response to
the false teaching of the faculty majority of Concordia Seminary
in St. Louis, the Synod adopted A Statement of Scriptural and Con-
fessional Principles in 1973.

A discussion arose in 1962 over the status of synodically
adopted statements. This discussion arose because of a move to el-
evate The Brief Statement of Confessional Status. The following
was printed in the 1967 Workbook (pp. 51-52) because of 1962
Res. 3-17 (1962 Proceedings, pp. 105-6).

APPENDIX E

Status and Use of Synodically Adopted Doctrinal
Statements

In keeping with the directive of the Cleveland convention
(Res. 3-17, Proceedings, pp. 10S—106) the Commission on The-
ology and Church Relations has considered the question of the
Status and use of synodically adopted doctrinal statements.

It is the opinion of the CTCR that the counsel of Synod bear-
ing on this question as recorded in Res. 3-17 of the Cleveland
convention and Res. 2-08 of the Detroit convention is an ade-
quate and well-formulated answer to this question, thoroughly in
keeping with the Holy Scriptures and with the Lutheran Con-
fessions under the Scriptures.

The confessional principle regarding doctrinal formulations
is expressed in the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule
and Norm, paragraph 9 and /0 (Book of Concord, ed. Theodore
G. Tappert, pp. 505-506):

Here he [Luther] expressly asserts by way of distinction
that the Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and
norm of all doctrine, and that no human being’s writings
dare be put on a par with it, but that everything must be sub-
jected to it.

This, of course, does not mean that other good, useful,
and pure books, such as interpretations of the Holy Scrip-
tures, refutations of errors, and expositions of doctrinal arti-
cles, should be rejected. If [German, wofern; Latin,
quatenus; insofar as] they are in accord with the aforemen-
tioned pattern of doctrine [that is, the three Ecumenical
Creeds, the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the Smal-
cald Articles, Luther’s Large and Small Catechisms] they
are to be accepted and used as helpful expositions and ex-
planations. Our intention was only to have a single, univer-
sally accepted, certain, and common form of doctrine to
which all our Evangelical churches subscribe and from
which and according to which, because [German, weil;
Latin, cum] it is drawn from the Word of God, all other writ-
ings are to be approved and accepted, judged and regulated.

In a discussion on church government F. Pieper states: ‘The
only purpose of voting in matters of doctrine is to see whether
all now understand the teaching of the divine Word and agree
to it; the purpose of the vote is not to decide the correctness of a
doctrine by majority vote or even by unanimous vote. The or-
thodox Christian Church remains aware of the fact that it cannot
by resolution make or give birth to Christian doctrines, but must
always merely set forth from Scripture and profess over against
the prevailing error the doctrine submitted and settled in Scrip-
ture” (Christian Dogmatics, Vo). III, p. 430). This quotation is
introduced to underscore the fact that the church in formulating
doctrinal statements from time to time to meet specific needs
does not intend to establish doctrine but to express assent to the
teaching of Scriptures. In this connection it would be helpful to
study the forthcoming CTCR document on What Is a Doctrine?

The cited synodical convention resolution, the statement
from the Formula of Concord, and the quotation from Christian
Dogmatics should adequately guide the Synod in determining
the status and use of synodically adopted doctrinal statements
in the ongoing life of the church.

Then is quoted Res. 3-17, 1962 Proceedings, pp. 105-106.

In 1973, the Synod adopted the following resolution: “To Un-
derstand Article II of the Synod’s Constitution as Requiring the
Formulation and Adoption of Synodical Doctrinal Statements,”
Res. 2-12 (1973 Proceedings, pp. 111-15).

Preamble

In his book, Theology of the Lutheran Confessions (Muh-
lenberg Press, Philadelphia, 1961), Edmund Schlink reminds
Lutherans who are seriously committed to the Confessions of
our church of an obligation which dare not be neglected. “Even
the most solemn reaffirmation of the Confessions may be a de-
nial of them, if the errors of the day are passed over in silence
.... At the very least the church, confronted with new heresies
will have to furnish up-to-date and binding interpretations of
her official Confessions.” (p. 31, emphasis added.)

At Augsburg in the year 1530 A.D. the first generation of
Lutherans promised, “If anyone should consider that [our Con-
fession] is lacking in some respect, we are ready to present fur-
ther information on the basis of the divine Holy Scripture.”
(Tappert, Book of Concord, p. 96:7)

The first generation of Lutherans kept this promise and ful-
filled the obligation to explain the AC when there was need to
do so. “An extensive Apology was prepared and published in
1531 to set forth clearly the true and genuine meaning of the
Augsburg Confession with a view . . . to forestalling the possi-
bility that under the name of the Augsburg Confession someone
might surreptitiously undertake to insinuate into the church er-
rors that had already been rejected” (504:6). For a meeting of
theologians in Smalcald in 1537 Luther drafted some articles in
which “the doctrine of the cited Augsburg Confession is re-
peated, [and] several articles are further explained on the basis
of God’s Word” (505:7) in order that in this way, for one thing,
those who disagreed with the Lutheran doctrine of the Real
Presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper might
be prevented from employing the loopholes in the Wittenberg